| | Objectivists often tend to be abrasive or escalate into personal conflicts over philosophical or emotional or artistic or personal values issues that they feel deeply about. (And this is also true of non-Objectivists, as witness the political polarization in the country between red states/blue states, leftists/conservatives, etc.)
But I was just reading a new thread on Solopassion which was about computers! Software, operating systems like Linux, etc. And here's what I found: (1, 2, 3 are different posters discussing this technical issue):
[I've just excerpted some remarks that show the 'style' of the debate...I've excised the technical topic entirely]
" 1. Not true... Not accurate... These are sweeping generalizations without factual support. [ayn rand like in-your-face debating style]
2. Well that's a nicely distorted view of history... I don't want to address every trifling bit of nonsense in Sanjay's post... How can he not be aware of...
1. [offended now] It was my mistake to reply to your posting.
2. ...context-dropping quibble...
3. [I don't know the referent here] How, exactly, was I acting in an altruistic fashion?
2. [responding to someone else in the discussion] why did you want to make it look like someone said something so idiotic as that? "
Notice the abrupt tone, the rudeness, the lack of benevolence, the aggressive and contemptuous put-downs...the use of inappropriate words like 'idiotic'.
I have had a previous career in computers prior to my current one. You would get instantly fired if you did this in office email or in a meeting. I have never once seen this kind of abrasiveness and rudeness and inappropriate discussion style in the office (and usually not even on the web which is a somewhat ruder place.) It's unprofessional. What this tells me is that many Objectivists have not even the most entry level social discussion and debate skills **even in areas which relate to complex and non-emotional technical issues**. [In part of the above excerpts, one or more parties is merely responding to the offense caused by the previous poster.] Which suggests they are destructive in every area of their lives. I hope people will read the discussion above and learn what not to do. Many people have spent so much time among on websites and among coarse, unpolished, super-aggressive Objectivists that they don't really that this kind of behavior will get you shunned or fired or get the crap beaten out of you in the "real world".
The fact that even Ayn Rand or Peikoff (or Perigo) have been prone to this sort of juvenilia from time to time is a lesson in what has made them far less successful or influential than they could have been.
Phil
PS, One or more of the participants will now write a furious and angry reply to me (if they read this list), instead of -accepting the criticism-. He will complain either that I overstated or that I am being rude or condescending or patronizing or butting in...or some other kind of evasive or defensive maneuver. Which will be one more proof of how impervious people can be. And how angry at criticism...which insures they will not change. ( Another person may write a reply saying how the above exchange is really "not that bad" which shows that an insensitivity to how even the first posting causes tempers to flare and an escalating desire to "put down" the person. Emily Post 101.)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 2/24, 1:02am)
|
|
